{"id":3396,"date":"2007-12-27T23:58:09","date_gmt":"2007-12-28T07:58:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/migrator.rab.olt.ubc.ca\/workplace\/2007\/12\/state-of-the-unions\/"},"modified":"2007-12-27T23:58:09","modified_gmt":"2007-12-28T07:58:09","slug":"state-of-the-unions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/workplace\/2007\/12\/state-of-the-unions\/","title":{"rendered":"State of the Unions"},"content":{"rendered":"

The New York Times: State of the Unions<\/a>
\nBy Paul Krugman<\/p>\n

Once upon a time, back when America had a strong middle
\nclass, it also had a strong union movement.<\/p>\n

These two facts were connected. Unions negotiated good
\nwages and benefits for their workers, gains that often
\nended up being matched even by nonunion employers. They
\nalso provided an important counterbalance to the
\npolitical influence of corporations and the economic
\nelite.<\/p>\n

Today, however, the American union movement is a shadow
\nof its former self, except among government workers. In
\n1973, almost a quarter of private-sector employees were
\nunion members, but last year the figure was down to a
\nmere 7.4 percent.<\/p>\n

Yet unions still matter politically. And right now
\nthey’re at the heart of a nasty political scuffle among
\nDemocrats. Before I get to that, however, let’s talk
\nabout what happened to American labor over the last 35
\nyears.<\/p>\n

It’s often assumed that the U.S. labor movement died a
\nnatural death, that it was made obsolete by
\nglobalization and technological change. But what really
\nhappened is that beginning in the 1970s, corporate
\nAmerica, which had previously had a largely cooperative
\nrelationship with unions, in effect declared war on
\norganized labor.<\/p>\n

Don’t take my word for it; read Business Week, which
\npublished an article in 2002 titled “How Wal-Mart Keeps
\nUnions at Bay.” The article explained that “over the
\npast two decades, Corporate America has perfected its
\nability to fend off labor groups.” It then described
\nthe tactics – some legal, some illegal, all involving a
\nhealthy dose of intimidation – that Wal-Mart and other
\ngiant firms use to block organizing drives.<\/p>\n

These hardball tactics have been enabled by a political
\nenvironment that has been deeply hostile to organized
\nlabor, both because politicians favored employers’
\ninterests and because conservatives sought to weaken
\nthe Democratic Party. “We’re going to crush labor as a
\npolitical entity,” Grover Norquist, the anti-tax
\nactivist, once declared.<\/p>\n

But the times may be changing. A newly energized
\nprogressive movement seems to be on the ascendant, and
\nunions are a key part of that movement. Most notably,
\nthe Service Employees International Union has played a
\nkey role in pushing for health care reform. And unions
\nwill be an important force in the Democrats’ favor in
\nnext year’s election.<\/p>\n

Or maybe not – which brings us to the latest from Iowa.<\/p>\n

Whoever receives the Democratic presidential nomination
\nwill receive labor’s support in the general election.
\nMeanwhile, however, unions are supporting favored
\ncandidates. Hillary Clinton – who for a time seemed the
\nclear front-runner – has received the most union
\nsupport. John Edwards, whose populist message resonates
\nwith labor, has also received considerable labor
\nsupport.<\/p>\n

But Barack Obama, though he has a solid pro-labor
\nvoting record, has not – in part, perhaps, because his
\nmessage of “a new kind of politics” that will transcend
\nbitter partisanship doesn’t make much sense to union
\nleaders who know, from the experience of confronting
\ncorporations and their political allies head on, that
\npartisanship isn’t going away anytime soon.<\/p>\n

O.K., that’s politics. But now Mr. Obama has lashed out
\nat Mr. Edwards because two 527s – independent groups
\nthat are allowed to support candidates, but are legally
\nforbidden from coordinating directly with their
\ncampaigns – are running ads on his rival’s behalf. They
\nare, Mr. Obama says, representative of the kind of
\n“special interests” that “have too much influence in
\nWashington.”<\/p>\n

The thing, though, is that both of these 527s represent
\nunion groups – in the case of the larger group, local
\nbranches of the S.E.I.U. who consider Mr. Edwards the
\nstrongest candidate on health reform. So Mr. Obama’s
\nattack raises a couple of questions.<\/p>\n

First, does it make sense, in the current political and
\neconomic environment, for Democrats to lump unions in
\nwith corporate groups as examples of the special
\ninterests we need to stand up to?<\/p>\n

Second, is Mr. Obama saying that if nominated, he’d be
\nwilling to run without support from labor 527s, which
\nmight be crucial to the Democrats? If not, how does he
\navoid having his own current words used against him by
\nthe Republican nominee?<\/p>\n

Part of what happened here, I think, is that Mr. Obama,
\nlooking for a stick with which to beat an opponent who
\nhas lately acquired some momentum, either carelessly or
\ncynically failed to think about how his rhetoric would
\naffect the eventual ability of the Democratic nominee,
\nwhoever he or she is, to campaign effectively. In this
\nsense, his latest gambit resembles his previous echoing
\nof G.O.P. talking points on Social Security.<\/p>\n

Beyond that, the episode illustrates what’s wrong with
\ncampaigning on generalities about political
\ntransformation and trying to avoid sounding partisan.<\/p>\n

It may be partisan to say that a 527 run by labor
\nunions supporting health care reform isn’t the same
\nthing as a 527 run by insurance companies opposing it.
\nBut it’s also the simple truth.<\/p>\n

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The New York Times: State of the Unions By Paul Krugman Once upon a time, back when America had a strong middle class, it also had a strong union movement. These two facts were connected. Unions negotiated good wages and … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3396","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/workplace\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3396","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/workplace\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/workplace\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/workplace\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/workplace\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3396"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/workplace\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3396\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/workplace\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3396"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/workplace\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3396"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/workplace\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3396"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}